The Confederated Salish-Kootenai Tribes and the Bureau of Indian Affairs have rolled out a draft environmental impact statement with proposals for netting lake trout on Flathead Lake.

The purpose of the project is to benefit native bull trout and westslope cutthroat trout, but it is bound to be controversial, largely because Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks has raised many concerns and is not participating in the project. 

Public comments on the environmental study will be accepted through Aug. 5.

“Following the successful completion of the [National Environmental Policy Act] process, the likely start date for the project would be late 2013,” a tribal website states. “Project activities could then occur year-round indefinitely into the future if the program achieves its objectives based on annual assessments and adaptive changes.”

The study includes an alternative that would maintain the status quo, with no gill netting proposed, but three other alternatives involve varying degrees of netting plus other measures to suppress the lake trout population.

All three include continuation of recreational angling, ongoing Mack Days fishing events, lake trout bounties and the elimination of a regulation that requires anglers to release lake trout between 30 to 36 inches long.

One would seek a 25 percent reduction in a 2010 estimated lake trout population by removing 84,000 fish annually with the deployment of 120,000 feet of gill nets.

Another alternative would seek a 50 percent population reduction with an annual target of 112,000 fish, using 286,700 feet of gill nets.

The third would involve a 75 percent population reduction with an annual target of 143,000 fish and the use of about 486,700 feet of gill nets.

According to the draft document, total angler spending on the lake is $20.1 million annually, and the three action alternatives would involve spending reductions of 5.3 percent, 8.2 percent and 11.6 percent, respectively, due to suppression of lake trout, the lake’s main sport fishery. 

The annual estimated direct costs of implementing the action alternatives are $462,000, $686,000 and $934,000, respectively.

The tribes are seeking Bonneville Power Administration fish and wildlife funding for the project.

Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks was involved with an initial experimental netting proposal that was introduced in 2010, when three public meetings were held, attracting considerable opposition. 

In the year that followed, the scope of the project was expanded, and by March 2012 the tribes announced that the project could last up to 50 years. 

That prompted Fish, Wildlife and Parks to withdraw from the project, mainly because its scope had changed so much from the original proposal and because of concerns that public involvement was inadequate. 

Over the last year, the tribes substantially expanded research and documentation included in the draft environmental study. 

But the state still has concerns.

A Fish, Wildlife and Parks position statement released Monday said gill netting is not necessary because bull trout populations are 60 percent above secure levels as defined in a state-tribal co-management plan for the lake. 

Fish, Wildlife and Parks “is concerned about the high level of uncertainty associated with the modeling results on which the EIS is based. We believe that the analysis underestimates the risk to bull trout from the proposed gill netting actions and overestimates the benefit to bull trout. We also believe that the impacts to the recreational [lake trout] fishery are underestimated.”

The state agency also raises concerns about “by-catch” of bull trout, along with whitefish and other species, in gill nets. The position statement also refers to potential impacts from altering the lake’s food web, with reduced numbers of lake trout and increased mysis shrimp eating more zooplankton, which could result in algae blooms.

 “There is so much riding on this just with the food chain,” said Mike Howe, owner of A-Able Fishing Charters. “Everything is going to be impacted by this. I just question whether people really understand this. It just seems to me that it’s a huge complex issue, and it’s not just about the lake trout.”

Like other charter boat captains, Howe has been critical of netting proposals and he is following the matter closely.

“I feel that [tribal officials] think they are doing the right thing. I think they honestly feel this needs to be done. But I also have great concern because the other side, FWP, feels they need to back off,” Howe said. “To me, that speaks volumes.”

Lake trout netting has supporters, including Montana Trout Unlimited.

“We’re supportive of increased lake trout suppression in Flathead Lake,” said Bruce Farling, the organization’s executive director. “We think we need to do a lot more than what’s happening right now. ... It’s not enough to get the rebound we need with bull trout.”

Farling said similar efforts are proving successful elsewhere. Gill netting has been underway on Idaho’s Lake Pend Oreille to address a collapse in a popular kokanee fishery. That led to the state stopping kokanee fishing around 2005. Since then, the kokanee population has rebounded due to lake trout suppression, allowing the state to reopen kokanee to fishing this year, Farling said.

Farling said Trout Unlimited does have concerns about bull trout by-catch, but he adds that much has been learned about how to minimize by-catch, and if bull trout continue to decline in the presence of lake trout over decades, by-catch will be “irrelevant” in the future.

Farling said there is a misperception that only the tribes and Trout Unlimited support the project, when he considers the constituency for lake trout to be “small and loud.”

“There’s a lot fewer people fishing Flathead Lake than there used to be, and it’s because of lake trout,” he said, asserting there is less angler interest because of the loss of Flathead Lake’s kokanee fishery and declines in its bull trout and cutthroat trout fisheries.

Fish, Wildlife and Parks reports that a 2011 survey tallied 33,631 angler days on the lake, the lowest in 15 years, but the agency suggests that it may be due to a declining lake trout fishery. The current harvest averages more than 70,000 fish annually with the spring and fall Mack Days events along with the general fishing season.

Barry Hansen, the tribes’ lead biologist for the project, could not be reached Monday afternoon.

The tribes are accepting public comments through Aug. 5, and there is a link for comments to be submitted on the Mack Days website at www.mackdays.com/DEIS.

Reporter Jim Mann may be reached at 758-4407 or by email at jmann@dailyinterlake.com.